Hotel Per La, Autograph Collection vs Similar Hotels

Rooms are often described as comfortable, spacious with great bathrooms and character, but several comments mention small or dark rooms, street-noise and small bathrooms in some units.

Rooms described as basic, small, dark or cramped (quad rooms particularly small), with thin/uncomfortable beds and occasional odor issues; some rooms are fine but variability is high.

Room quality varied; some rooms had issues with layout and temperature control.

Mixed reviews; while some rooms were good, issues with a shower were noted.

Multiple reviewers explicitly praise cleanliness (e.g., 'La propreté du lieu est irréprochable', 'clean'); one mention of a sewage issue, but overall cleanliness is reported as very good.

Mixed reports: several guests noted smells (urine, feet), dirty carpet in quad rooms, pool debris and items left in rooms — cleanliness inconsistent across rooms.

There were notable cleanliness issues mentioned, including dirty carpets and the need for better attention to room cleanliness.

Some reviews mentioned issues with cleanliness, specifically small stains and old furniture.

Many reviewers praise the central location and walking access to attractions and dining; a minority note it can feel far from some central areas or that the immediate neighborhood can be seedy with homelessness/urine smell—overall location sentiment is very positive but mixed.

Centrally located and convenient for downtown activities; some guests mentioned street noise and visible homelessness nearby, but overall location is a strong positive.

The hotel is praised for its good location with beautiful views.

Positive mentions of the location being central and convenient, especially for events.

Service is frequently highlighted as excellent, helpful and hardworking ('staff were excellent', 'staff super-helpful', 'very patient and sympa'); a few isolated reports of unfriendly staff or slow restaurant service, but overall service sentiment is strongly positive.

Consistently praised: multiple reviews call out welcoming, helpful and friendly staff (noah, reception, valet, bartenders) and attentive service at the rooftop and lobby.

Staff is described as very friendly, accommodating, and providing good service.

Consistently positive feedback on service, with mentions of friendly and attentive staff.

The roof terrace restaurant and food are explicitly praised ('great food at the roof terrace'); there are occasional service slowdowns and temporary closures due to filming, but overall F&B is well regarded.

Cocktails and rooftop service receive positive mentions, but breakfast is often criticized as low-quality, cold or overpriced; overall F&B is mixed leaning slightly positive for drinks/venue.

Breakfast and restaurant offerings were highlighted positively.

Some disappointment in food quality compared to past visits.

Rooftop restaurant, pool/bar and characterful public spaces are praised; however filming during some stays limited access to main restaurant and gym, and parking/valet issues were noted.

Rooftop pool, stylish lobby and common spaces are frequently praised and a key draw; however some in-room amenities (hair dryer, kettle, reliable mini-fridge, gym) are lacking or inconsistent.

The pool and rooftop areas received positive feedback, enhancing the stay.

General satisfaction with amenities, though some could improve.

Mixed sentiment: some call it 'great value' and 'luxury for a nice price', while others describe the hotel as 'very expensive' and criticize high parking/valet costs—net sentiment below the overall target.

Perceived as overpriced by several guests given room quality, parking fees and breakfast cost/quality — many say 'you get what you pay for' or feel charges (parking, valet) are high.

Some guests felt the pricing did not match the overall quality, especially with extra charges.

Overall good value, although some concerns about specific services like food.